I'm Not a Witch!

Christine O'Donnell. Another person that the Tea Party seems to want continue the march to mediocrity that started with George W. Bush. Some people have even called her a "Sarah Palin mini-me." It seems like the Tea Partiers equate anti-establishment with lowest common denominator. Is there anyone out there that is smart and anti-establishment?

We could talk about how colleges are lining up to set the story straight on whether she attended them or not, or how she thinks she's on a mission from God to keep the Bush era tax cuts on the books, but what really gets my stupid goat is her thoughts on creationism that were brought up in the debate last night.

Didn't we put this to rest when GW was asked about it and most people scoffed at his "political" answer that both evolution and creationism should be taught side by side? Christine thinks the government "overreaches" by not letting schools teach creationism (aka Intelligent Design). I want to ask her in what class should they teach creationism? Because it definitely cannot be in a science class!

It is very simple. Creationism is not a science. It doesn't use the scientific method to reach its conclusions. It uses a two thousand year old book that was written when humans thought the earth was flat and the center of the universe.

If a private school wants to teach creationism and turn out a bunch of students who won't be able to make it through a college freshman course of biology then they have that right. But since our government separates church from state (much to the chagrin of many christians and I assume Christine) creationism cannot be allowed. If Christine ever gets the chance to take the oath to defend the constitution she should read the First Amendment once or twice.

I'd also like to ask Christine if creationism should be taught, and we don't want our government to endorse only one religion, than would she allow the wiccan view of how the universe began as well? And if we are willing to go that far then what about the view that I and many other pirates out there believe in, The Flying Spaghetti Monster. We all bask in his noodly appendage. Ramen!

Religious freedom for ALL, no exceptions.

There are a lot of people out there coming to stupid conclusions about the issue of an Islamic community center maybe being built 2 blocks away from Ground Zero. Newt Gingrich, in an obvious move to keep himself in the news and relevant, has become their champion.

On his own site Newt writes about his reasons for opposing the building of this community center. He thinks that radical Islam is trying to take over America. He has to dig so deep to reference a Marie Claire article for his proof. One article from Marie Claire magazine (isn't that a fashion magazine that helped create the show Project Runway? I love that show! Everyone knows that, "in fashion, one day you're in and the next day you're out." But I digress) does not proof make.

Now, I'd like to explain to Newt about our first amendment and religious liberty but he shows in his essay that he understands this. He stays, "in these and other instances, sharia is explicitly at odds with core American and Western Values. It is an explicit repudiation of freedom of conscience and religious liberty as well as the premise that citizens are equal under the law.

Sharia is the Islamic law that a lot of Islamic theocratic governments subscribe to. Yes, sharia is at odds with our constitution as it would be, at its simplest, endorsing one religion. Our first amendment forbids that so anything short of a violent Islamic revolution that overthrows our government and army there is no possibility that sharia law would ever become our law no matter how many mosques are built in this country.

To tell you the truth, I'm more concerned about a violent Christian revolution by American citizens who wrongly attribute our constitution and Declaration of Independence were formed by Judeo-Christians and think we need to go back to the way things were. Our forefathers were deists and the "creator" they speak of is no more from the Old or New Testaments than he is from the Koran. But that is for another post...

I also want to ask Newt about his belief that "citizens are all equal under the law." Does this mean Newt thinks gays should have the right to marry? I know he talks about being pro "traditional" marriage but to him the word "traditional" means that you can marry as many times as you want and cheat on said wives whenever you feel like.

At the end of Newt's essay he says Islamists are trying to confuse people. I think really either one of two things are happening. Either Newt is confused or he is the one doing his best to try and confuse American citizens.

In the end, the real reason Newt has injected himself into this and many other national conversations is his thinly veiled ramp up to running for president.

Well, a man that doesn't even understand the constitution that he might have to swear to defend one day (again) does not make a good president. Newt should take some time for some meditation or something and try to figure out what his values are. Not what he thinks Americans want his values to be or what the GOP machine wants his values to be, but what it really means to be an American and defend our constitution. Because if you swear to defend it you have to defend the rights of every American and not just the one's you agree with. Anything less would be, well, stupid.

Palinese

Oh, you knew she was going to end up here sooner or later. You could say she definitely had a part in the spark of inspiration to create this site.

But, let's remember our credo that most people aren't stupid but do and say stupid things. Sarah is definitely one of those people. What is weird is that she seems to do it on purpose a lot of the time. Let me just say that you don't get to capture the nation's attention just by being an idiot. I'm sure she's had help along the way and, at the risk of sounding sexist, her looks (she was a beauty queen) definitley haven't hurt her career.

Well, I won't delve into the past because she's definitely the gift that will keep on giving. So I'll start with her latest stupidness.

Just over a week ago she decided to use an oldie but goodie. She referred to President Obama buy using his full name. Now this isn't so much stupid as calculated and also showing complete desperation. In trying to defend Delaware Senate Candidate Christine O'Donnell (she's on my list but Bill Maher has been a great job so maybe I'll leave it to the professionals for now) she threw out his name, which in her mind, is a slur. Her and McCain's own campaign of 2008 denounced people when they would use Obama's full name in obvious attempt to disparage him and remind people that his dad was an African muslim (like that is necessarily a bad thing anyway?).

But Sarah is the queen of the lowest common denominator. She uses tactics that 6 year olds on a playground use like calling the MSM the "lamestream" media. It takes all my will power to not follow her to the lowest common denominator and yell at the t.v. and say, "I know you are but what am I?!"

We'll have to start a Palin count on this page or something. But I'll only ask Sarah this--how low can you go?